Ode to Wing and More Letters to the Editor

Oh, my dear Jeff!
I’ll be the first to confess
Your acerbic finesse
Singes my skin like a spark to a dress.

But your piece on Ms. Flagg–
Well, on that I will brag!
I laughed out loud–
truly cackled, by gag!
Every phrase, every turn,
Had a bright comic burn;
What a picture you painted–
what language! What swag!

So bravo, good Wing–
Let the newsroom bells ring!
For your column was joy from 
beginning to zing.

-Christina Eliason

Lovely Elizabeth’s Appraisals

Reading her column is like going on a little walk through history.

I always marvel at her knowledge, and at the way she brings light to even the most simple objects that others have made (or found) and have held dear to their hearts through the ages. 

This “dear-ness” is a more profound human quality than we give it credit for. We get to be sentimental and be glad for it.

Her column is like “Antiques Road Show” for people who like to read.

A retroactive (and proactive) thank you.

Sincerely,
LeeAnn Morgan

Harding’s Sleight of Hand

In his column of March 5, Jeffrey Harding writes to justify our initiating a war with Iran. In doing so, he makes a number of inaccurate characterizations.

First, he states the goal of the war is to “stop Iran from acquiring nuclear armaments.” The U.S. President himself begs to disagree. Trump has offered a host of shifting reasons for attacking Iran, including stopping the regime’s carnage of its citizens and the claim that Iran was planning to attack the U.S. So Harding is engaging in sleight of hand when he stylizes the motive for the war as preventing the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear arms.

Harding recognizes that Trump tearing up one treaty designed to stop Iran’s advance towards a bomb complicates his contrived narrative. He therefore introduces his second inaccurate assertion. The treaty, he says, would not stop the regime’s “nuclear aspirations.” Harding employs this clever phrasing to hide the fact, documented by the UN’s nuclear regulatory agency, that the treaty put the brakes on the regime’s drive for nuclear arms. The breakout time necessary to gain a weapon was extended from a few months to more than a year. Moreover, the treaty installed nuclear watchdogs to monitor any steps Iran might take to secure a weapon. Until the treaty was abandoned by Trump, it had done a remarkable job of holding the line, no matter what Iran’s supposed ambitions were.

Harding of course fails to note that the U.S. and its ally dropped bombs precisely when negotiations for a new treaty were seemingly making progress. This surely was not the moment to replace diplomacy with a campaign of destruction.

Our president offers shifting justifications for war. But his one clear goal has been to add Iran to a list of countries we have unilaterally attacked. Trump seems intent on copying the much-admired Russian dictator Putin in disregarding the traditional peace-ensuring norms of the international order. Already in this war of choice we are reaping heartbreaking injuries as American soldiers are flown back to be buried. Our commander in chief cavalierly plays war games without any end game, without worrying about deaths or destruction, all despite Harding’s spin.

Yours truly,
Rich Kaplan

Salient Points on the Iran War

Jeffrey Harding’s article in the March 5 issue enumerates ample reasons to wish for the demise of the nefarious theocratic Iranian regime. He states that “this war was going to happen at some point.” That is a bland, passive way of dissembling; the U.S. and Israel started the war!

I concur that the Iranian theocracy is evil, and should be gone, but there are many good arguments against the U.S.-Israeli attack. Among just some of the salient points which Harding failed to address:

– In 1953 the U.S., in collusion with Great Britain, fomented a coup in Iran which deposed the popular and democratically elected government and brought to power the Shah, whose subsequent 26 years of rule were characterized by autocracy and vicious repression, spearheaded by a dreaded police force. Iranians remember that. The U.S. history of deposing (many) regimes has rarely led to a new, peaceful, democratic regime.

– The Reagan administration professed disdain for theocratic Iran, but from 1981 to 1986 was willing to sell it arms secretly, to fund clandestine (because Congress banned it) support for the Contras, a militia trying with U.S. support to overthrow another democratically elected government, this time in Nicaragua. The ayatollah and company were allegedly evil, but we were willing to take their money.

– The Iranian government has consistently denied the intention to obtain nuclear weapons. United Nations agencies and inspectors, and U.S. intelligence agencies, up until the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, agreed that there was no evidence that since 2003 the Iran government had been pursuing nuclear weapons.

– Iran, like all nations, has the legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful uses.

– One of the most aggressive Middle Eastern countries has over decades developed a large stockpile of nuclear weapons. (Guess which country.) Has the U.S. ever objected?

– After the 9/11 terrorist attack on the U.S., Iran professed support for the U.S. and helped to combat Al Qaeda and other Sunni Islamist terrorist organizations.

– Even when the Trump administration withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 (the JCPOA), its own intelligence agencies agreed that Iran had adhered to the treaty and not moved toward developing nuclear weapons. 

– Attacking another country without oneself being attacked, or being under imminent threat of attack, is a violation of international law. International law protects all countries, including the U.S.  

Steve Daniels, Santa Barbara